atitude: simply opening a biology textbook and learning about evolution is not going to convince me of it. Although, the more I read about the complexity of the simplest cells, and how from then on everything else is more complicated, it would cause me to question evolution rather than simple conjecture in favor in evolution without direct evidence.

scottie: we may differ on religion, but we can at least be together on this one: there are to many very far fetched possibilities that have to line up in order for evolution to be possible. And with reference to lysosome, this is only ONE example. There is complexity and conundrum for evolutionist in all of life. And for all of these impossibilities to have happened by chance, without orchestration, all at the same time? No. It simply is not possible.

JackBean: You see, this is the thing about arguing evolution in its own realm: you guys simply conjecture around what we say instead of using facts and observed examples.

Again with the Lysosome. It would digest the cell it is in. Low pH conditions are not created by water, and cell fluid is only produced by the cell. Therefor, the enzyme evolving outside of the membrane would dissolve the membrane, or the enzyme inside of the membrane which would not contain cell fluid, and thus the enzyme is consumed form the inside out. Or how the lysosome got into the cell? Did the lysosome develop inside our outside the cell? Evolution still has not answers for this. You debated, but you never answered the question. The simple answer is that is is impossible.

Also, there is one more argument that I forgot to mention. A regular cell, if it has an encounter with bacteria, would die. Evolution sais that more complex organisms come after the simpler organisms. Bacteria would have developed before the cell. How can the cell develop in a environment with bacteria?

An animal which has a brain, is considered more complex than one that has not.

A creature that has a brain in early life, when it's mobile, then loses it after fixing itself down...when it doesn't really need a brain any more - what degree of complexity does THAT hold ?

One might even consider it more complex evolution, to have the development of brain disposal .Humans might survive longer as a species if the brain could be ruined a bit. Getting rid of ability to use alphabet would probably be just the thing.

Crucible: Do you realize that you just turned the human into a vegetable by removing its brain?

This mutation of a lack of a brain or the the lack of half of a brain has occurred recently in history, and these people with half a brain have an island of massive intellectual ability (intellectual ability in only one area), if any ability at all. Commonly, these individuals cannot be self directive in any way and, if left to the wonder and live for themselves, would die. When the brain is taken away, the individual may not have to learn the alphabet (which is unnecessary to surviving in the wild) but the individual will also loose their center for THINKING and ACTING and CONTROLLING THEIR BODY. Brain disposal is clearly not a adaptation.

When has brain disposal been observed to be a beneficial adaptation in the environment?

Tomn wrote:Crucible: Do you realize that you just turned the human into a vegetable by removing its brain?

This mutation of a lack of a brain or the the lack of half of a brain has occurred recently in history, and these people with half a brain have an island of massive intellectual ability (intellectual ability in only one area), if any ability at all. Commonly, these individuals cannot be self directive in any way and, if left to the wonder and live for themselves, would die. When the brain is taken away, the individual may not have to learn the alphabet (which is unnecessary to surviving in the wild) but the individual will also loose their center for THINKING and ACTING and CONTROLLING THEIR BODY. Brain disposal is clearly not a adaptation.

When has brain disposal been observed to be a beneficial adaptation in the environment?

For a creature that has a split lifestyle...first with mobility, then later settling in a spot and essentially filter feeding.

Since when does someone who settles in one area stop using their brain? They may plateau in their amount of brain usage, but they do not decrease in brain function and begin to dispose of unused functions.

I am currently in an AP Psychology class. My teacher is an evolutionist, and he has clearly stated that once something is in long-term memory, it doesnt go away. If i were to move away from civilization, and stop writing for 20 years, I could come back and relearn it because the brain never loses what was goes into long-term memory.

Also, even if I didnt learn writing as a child, I could mold into civilization as a 30 year old, even a 60 year old who was thrown into the woods as a child and never knew writing. This is because of adult neurogenesis: the brain, throughout individuals life span, continuously creates new neurons. I could learn it later in life after not needing it from birth. Learning it would come with some difficulty because I've been in the wild all of my life, but I would still be able to learn it.

The brain does begin to deteriorate when you dont use it, but the extreme case that you are referring to is most similar to cases of Alzheimer's. Obviously, people with Alzheimer's cannot be self directive and are always, for the rest of their life, will be guided by the hand by other people.

Tomn wrote:Also, even if I didnt learn writing as a child, I could mold into civilization as a 30 year old, even a 60 year old who was thrown into the woods as a child and never knew writing. This is because of adult neurogenesis: the brain, throughout individuals life span, continuously creates new neurons. I could learn it later in life after not needing it from birth. Learning it would come with some difficulty because I've been in the wild all of my life, but I would still be able to learn it.

JackBean: It is not me that is saying that adult neurogenesis is true, its my TEXTBOOK and LEGITIMATE OBSERVATIONS. Put adult neurogenesis or neurogenesis in google. You will see the overwhelming evidence everywhere.

These are just the first 3 links for a google search of "adult neurogenesis". You dont have to read that far to find that the conception of the brain not producing new neurons after birth is an urban myth and misconception.

If you dont believe it, thats fine with me. I cant tell you how to think.

So you respond to sole but not adult neurogenesis? So you're ignoring the facts and discussion? A religious conversation as a cop out?

Let me bring it back to you. We were talking about brain disposal. There was an argument that brain disposal is an evolutionary advantage because unnecessary parts of the brain are "disposed of" because their functions are no longer used.

However, I brought up adult neurogenesis and the facts that anyone can re-fold into society by relearning after being an outcast for some time. You can reread the arguments above. Obviously, this disproved their argument but the people I was debating never bothered to respond back and admit it. They just stayed quite and didnt come back.

So are you going to ignore facts and continue this conversation?

Either way its fine with me because I like to explain the truths of Christianity.